Page 4 of 5
#121
Quote by ElisabithaOak
I feel a real danger with public business being disguised as private business. It's probably more of a danger to the freedom of the western world-maybe the whole world- now than fascism, seeing as everyone is rightfully scared of that.

Do you at least hear what I'm saying?

I (and probably others) would be more likely to start a business if I thought I had the freedom to do what I wanted, and if I only had 5 people working for me, I'm gunna want to be able to get the best workers I can find and that might mean firing someone on short notice. Now you might say this is different from a huge corp but it's the principal of the matter to. I want to have freedom yadig? I even want racist and bigoted people to have their freedom.

This is only one example of freedom but this government encroaching on private business' freedom makes me teh sads.

What also alarms me is that this is what is the first step of the government controlling people for the sake of 'freedom'.

"You can't do this because it offends or inconviences someone!" This line of thinking doesn't make sense. If it your own business of course you can!

Private economy is going to leave some people out in the cold sometimes.

more shrugs to follow in future replies
The problem with this argument is that it isn't logically sound the way you've presented it; you are attacking a strawman. You are arguing that the government shouldn't deny private enterprises the possibility to hire the people best apt for the job - no-one is going against that (as long as it is practised within reason). The problem is discrimination based on race or sexuality does not pertain to this; a gay person will not be less capable of doing a job due to his quality of being gay - in the cases were this does not apply, no-one is going against it; nobody would rage if a black actor with superior skills was turned down on the role of Isaac Newton in favour of a white actor (or a gay man in a straight/lesbian porn). So when the government denies the discrimination, it does not diminish the employer's capacity of finding the best man for the job (it actually helps it ).

Another point that others have already touched upon, is that you ignore the employers obligations to his employees. The employer is driving a business, and wants it to be driven in the best way possible. The employees are fundamental in this; when they commit themselves to the job they also carry the obligation to do the work they've signed up for, since the employer have invested in them. The problem is that employees are invested in the employer as well; they've committed themselves to that particular job instead whatever opportunities they've had. As such, the employer also has obligations towards them.
Although the employees can be in a position to screw the employer over, most often it is the opposite that is the case - but you only want to protect the employer from getting screwed, despite the fact that they are usually the ones in power.

Edit: I should update the page more often before I start writing a post. I'm curious, what are your exact reasons for banning Oak? Although she(?) is probably a troll, that isn't really cause for a ban, otherwise Neo-evil would be long gone.
Oh, okay. Might I ask which particular user would post that thread? We should have a bet. I'm going with represent... Or actually, screw that. Which prominent users have been banned lately?
Last edited by lncognito at Oct 3, 2012,
#122
Quote by StewieSwan
Probably not. I'm sure we'll see more asinine opinions crop up here and there.



Yep, I was right.
Check out my band Disturbed
#123
Quote by CodeMonk
Thank you Goliath.

You have more patience than I do.
First post that moron made, I had a feeling it was gonna end with a banning.

I don't mind a good argument.
But when someone is just so fucked up and won't even consider another opinion, and is just totally wrong, its frustrating.
Lack of weed compounds the issue

While I'm glad people approve of the decision, no mod is allowed to simply ban someone because they're an idiot - even trolling, if it is borderline between that and plain idiocy, would typically be a warning (aside from repeat offenders). But the user already had a warning dished out elsewhere today, and I've stalled leaving the flat to await a thread in FOTB that hasn't materialised, which suggests that certain suspicions leading to the banning are correct.

On the other hand, I appreciate the thanks
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#124
Quote by DisarmGoliath
While I'm glad people approve of the decision, no mod is allowed to simply ban someone because they're an idiot - even trolling, if it is borderline between that and plain idiocy, would typically be a warning (aside from repeat offenders). But the user already had a warning dished out elsewhere today, and I've stalled leaving the flat to await a thread in FOTB that hasn't materialised, which suggests that certain suspicions leading to the banning are correct.

On the other hand, I appreciate the thanks



Oh yeah, been there.
Worked in a prison.

I also helped run a chat network and on another network, several channels.
Running the network was easy.
But when running or moderating 4 channels with up to 2000 users at a time, is a challenge. I spent countless hours writing scripts to automate stuff.
But it was fun at times too.
#125
Quote by Trowzaa
arizona

what r u doin

stahp


is this meant to be read like tommy wiseau


because that's how i read it
~don't finkdinkle when ur supposed to be dimpdickin~
#126
Well shit, I'm not going to pay for employees eye care coverage either. I'll just higher people with 20/20 vision instead.
#127
lmao the last couple of pages



some of you handled it well, but others... good lord the rage

meanwhile someone said the headline contradicts the meat of the actual article, and we lost that in the trollfle shuffle. Care to re-post that, whoever you were?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#128
I don't understand how a woman can support a bill that ****s over other women and prevents them from contributing to society through having a job. What a cunt.
Quote by Renka
OddOneOut is an Essex S&M mistress and not a pirate or a computer program.

#129
Can't we all just agree that this is Nicolas Cage's fault?
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#130
Quote by technicolour
Well shit, I'm not going to pay for employees eye care coverage either. I'll just higher people with 20/20 vision instead.

Of course, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to think as an employer. If you are being obliged to cover your employees healthcare costs then you'd be a fool to hire unhealthy people.

Frankly, it'd be good for America if employers started refusing to cover healthcare procedures, or healthcare in general.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#131
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Of course, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to think as an employer. If you are being obliged to cover your employees healthcare costs then you'd be a fool to hire unhealthy people.

Frankly, it'd be good for America if employers started refusing to cover healthcare procedures, or healthcare in general.

The only reason it would be good is that it would put more pressure on the populace to support single payer ideas
#132
Quote by captaincrunk
The only reason it would be good is that it would put more pressure on the populace to support single payer ideas

It would essentially force that. But even if people just ended up having to buy their own health insurance it would still be more economically efficient. The current system is one of the worst imaginable really.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#134
**** Arizona
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#135
Quote by anvil is god
As a practicing catholic, what the **** Arizona.
Last thing I remembered, catholics didn't believe in the apotheosis of inanimate metal objects.
#137
Quote by lncognito
Last thing I remembered, catholics didn't believe in the apotheosis of inanimate metal objects.

Well, well...


#138
Quote by TheReverend724
The only good law passed here in the past 30 years was our medical marijuana law


Everything else makes me want to cry

FedEx me some, yo.

you won't get caught.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#139
Quote by anvil is god
As a practicing catholic, what the **** Arizona.

I didn't know any Catholics actually cared about any of that shit.

I know I don't know any who do.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#140
Quote by WCPhils
I didn't know any Catholics actually cared about any of that shit.

I know I don't know any who do.

Your certain former senator
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#142
Quote by SteveHouse
lmao the last couple of pages


some of you handled it well, but others... good lord the rage

meanwhile someone said the headline contradicts the meat of the actual article, and we lost that in the trollfle shuffle. Care to re-post that, whoever you were?
Yeah, guilty as charged.
I'm moving this week so I'm a bit on edge.

Quote by technicolour
Well shit, I'm not going to pay for employees eye care coverage either. I'll just higher people with 20/20 vision instead.

I know you are joking but...
Several years ago, I was working at a company that while they had healthcare coverage, we didn't have a vision plan.
As someone who wears glasses, this was an issue for me.
So I polled everyone in the company and asked them about vision issues.
75% of them wore glasses at some point during the course of the day if not always.
Then I dug up research about eye strain and other issues (like eye strain related headaches) affecting people with less than perfect vision.
Within a month, we had a vision plan.
Last edited by CodeMonk at Oct 3, 2012,
#144
Quote by ElisabithaOak
A few of workers rights are the right to quit, the right to start their own business... and tons more.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
#145
Quote by ElisabithaOak
Because this is silly and stupid.

I'm into rights. I really am.

I feel it is the owner of a private company's right to hire and fire who they like. I don't know how else to put it.

Don't you think this is the waste of courts time?

Is the next step with this sort of 'non-discrimination at all costs, even at the cost of the right to have beliefs because that would be implying someone else is wrong' movement thinking that a company looking to hire workers has to hire anyone and everyone the government deems qualified?

This is nothing to do with who an employer has to hire, nobody can force an employer to hire anyone, it's just a case of protecting an employees rights once they've been hired. Don't forget, when someone starts working for someone else, they enter into an agreement known as a 'working contract' that states and protects both of their rights. The employer is guaranteed a fair amount of work from the employee who in turn is guaranteed a position of employment.... unless of course it becomes impossible for the employer to employ the employee, for such reasons as the business failing, in which case the employer has the right to make the employee redundant, which is a much different thing to firing them for no good reason.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

The government, or I guess more accurately the courts, shouldn't be able to decide whether a firing is just. It is up to the owner's discretion- it is the owners right to decide.

But not everyone treats people in a fair way, and people with jobs often have dependants such as children who rely on their parents to feed, cloth and keep a roof over their heads. When an employer has the right to just fire someone for no good reason, then that's also giving them the right to take the food out of a childs mouth or cause the child's family (and therefore the child itself) to become homeless. Then there's the problem of employers who would take advantage of having the right to fire someone indiscriminately, for example, an employer could blackmail someone into giving them sexual favors, working an unrealistic amount of hours or carrying out unreasonably dangerous work without the required protective clothing or equipment in return for keeping their job, which, in a recession when jobs are hard to come by, is easier for an employer to do to someone.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

In Canada we have people being taken to court wasting huge amounts of time and money over someone being called a 'fag' in a silly argument outside of a bar. Don't you think that's ridiculous? People have been arguing and name calling for thousands of years. I think a person has the right to call someone a fag... similar to the way you guys call people idiots when they state something you believe to be incorrect.

I kind of agree with you on this, (I'd disagree if for example the person being called a 'fag' is then falsly regarded as a homosexual by others and discriminated against because of it, in which case they'd have a perfect right to sue the person who started all of this by calling them a 'fag' in public for defamation) however, this has nothing whatsoever to do with an employee's rights to continued employment.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

What someone doesn't have the right to do is harras another person. Which could be defined as pursuing someone in an attempt to bully them after the person has told you to leave them alone.

This is true. But if an employer has the right to indiscriminately fire an employee, then that can effectively remove a person's right to not be harassed, for example, if an emplyer has the right to indiscriminately fire someone, then an employer could be sexualy harassing an employee and getting away with it because the employee needs the job.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

An employer should have the right to fire a homosexual because they are homosexual.

Why on earth would anyone wish to give bigotry more power?
Look, the laws of any country are designed to try and make make their society work in the best and most efficient way possible. If bigotry is allowed it just causes all sorts of problems further down the line, so it makes more sense to nip bigotry in the bud where it begins rather than having to deal with the effects of where it leads to later.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

A person should not be legally free (don't have the right) to spray paint a persons house, continuously bother the person after they have been told to leave them alone, physically assault them etc, etc.

Agreed.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

People have the right to think other people are behaving wrongly or immorally and they have the right to declare those beliefs publicly and privately.

Now you're contradicting yourself, you said earlier that harassing people is wrong and should not be allowed, but here you are effectively defending someone's right to publicly and privately harass someone else. Remember, harassment can be verbal as well as physical.
Quote by ElisabithaOak

for example I believe homosexual unions are immoral. ( let's go guys... or not it probably wont yield any positive results but arguing is sometimes fun so.... actually lets not go about this. If you call me homophobe or whatever in this thread I probably wont respond)

OK, so why do you believe that homosexual unions are immoral? Most truly immoral acts are deemed to be immoral because they create a victim, so where's the victim in a homosexual union between consenting adults?
Quote by ElisabithaOak

The point is that I believe I have the right to think homosexual unions are morally wrong- not that homosexuals are fundamentally flawed or inherently damned; I believe that homosexuals, like everyone else, are fundamentally good. I have the right to believe that and whatever else I want and make all and any of my decisions according to any and all of my beliefs- be that in parenting my children or running my business.

I'd agree that you have the right to believe what you wish to believe, but as you said earlier, harassment of someone else is wrong. If you act upon your belief in a way that discriminates against someone else, whether you are denying them their rights to equality or making unreasonable demands of them as their employer, you are effectively harassing them.

Quote by ElisabithaOak
I think employers should have the right o discriminate.

I've stated this several times.


But discrimination is a form of harassment, and you've already stated that nobody should have the right to harass others. You can't have it both ways, it'd be like having the right to shoot someone but not the right to hurt them in the process.
Quote by ElisabithaOak
What good is the right to have beliefs but not act on beliefs within the law?

Maybe it's the illusion of a right?


Well, let's for example consider that a person here, after reading some of your opinions in this thread, 'believes' that you are truly evil and that you should be killed to protect humanity. Now, let's consider that after thinking about it they decide against actualy killing you because it's against the law.

Aren't you glad that that person cannot act on their beliefs within the law?

Quote by ElisabithaOak

Even you might feel a little bit guilty for banning me because you lost an arguement or failed to bully me into silence Goliath?

Oops, you just effectively got 'fired' from the forum, and not indiscriminately either but apparently for legitimate reasons, so if you believe that firing people indiscriminately should be allowed, why are you complaining?

On a personal note, I'm disappointed that you got banned because I was looking forward to making you realise why your views on this matter are wrong via sensible debate.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 5, 2012,
#146
Quote by SlackerBabbath



But discrimination is a form of harassment, and you've already stated that nobody should have the right to harass others. You can't have it both ways, it'd be like having the right to shoot someone but not the right to hurt them in the process.


umm not really, it can be, but discrimination is way too broad to equate the two like that. For example, say someone really doesn't like Canadians for whatever reason and so makes a point to have as little contact with them as possible (when they do come in contact, the person is polite and whatnot but tries to end the conversation as soon as possible without looking like an asshole) that's discrimination, but nobody is being harassed, and more directly if you fire someone because you find out they are on birth control, that can be done without any behavior that would be construed as harassment.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#147
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
umm not really, it can be, but discrimination is way too broad to equate the two like that. For example, say someone really doesn't like Canadians for whatever reason and so makes a point to have as little contact with them as possible (when they do come in contact, the person is polite and whatnot but tries to end the conversation as soon as possible without looking like an asshole) that's discrimination, but nobody is being harassed,

My mistake, I should have said 'active discrimination is a form of harassment', and firing someone because of your discrimination is 'active' harsssment because your discrimination is having an effect on that person.
Quote by Kid_Thorazine

and more directly if you fire someone because you find out they are on birth control, that can be done without any behavior that would be construed as harassment.

I disagree.
Just the act of firing someone for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you and doesn't effect the way an employee works for you is a form of harassment. Let's not forget, 'harassment' is commonly defined as 'behaviour intended to disturb or upset', surely an employer understands beforehand that firing someone without a legitimate reason is bound to disturb or upset them?
#148
Quote by SlackerBabbath
...

On a personal note, I'm disappointed that you got banned because I was looking forward to making you realise why your views on this matter are wrong via sensible debate.

Slacker, as much as I respect you and your powers of persuasion, you would have failed.
#149
Quote by CodeMonk
Slacker, as much as I respect you and your powers of persuasion, you would have failed.


Would you be willing to bet money on that?
#150
Quote by SlackerBabbath
My mistake, I should have said 'active discrimination is a form of harassment', and firing someone because of your discrimination is 'active' harsssment because your discrimination is having an effect on that person.

I disagree.
Just the act of firing someone for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you and doesn't effect the way an employee works for you is a form of harassment. Let's not forget, 'harassment' is commonly defined as 'behaviour intended to disturb or upset', surely an employer understands beforehand that firing someone without a legitimate reason is bound to disturb or upset them?


It might upset them, but that's not why they where fired, the intent is to have them not work for you anymore because you don't like something about them, them getting upset is incidental.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#152
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
It might upset them, but that's not why they where fired, the intent is to have them not work for you anymore because you don't like something about them, them getting upset is incidental.

It is in a case of a legitimate firing, but not if you fire someone for no legitimate reason.

Legaly, if you win a tribunal against a former employer for unfair dismissal, the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation, so an employee getting upset about being unfairly dismissed is legaly not incidental.

Quote by CodeMonk
Yup.
At least 1 e-cookie, with boobies.

Ahh, not real money then? Not fully confident in your doubts?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 4, 2012,
#153
"no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th ammendment.

That means no different laws for men and women. I don't know how that could be any clearer.
#154
Quote by CoreysMonster
"no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th ammendment.

That means no different laws for men and women. I don't know how that could be any clearer.


#155
Quote by SlackerBabbath
It is in a case of a legitimate firing, but not if you fire someone for no legitimate reason.

Legaly, if you win a tribunal against a former employer for unfair dismissal, the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation, so an employee getting upset about being unfairly dismissed is legaly not incidental.




It is incidental here, we also have at will employment in most states, which means your employers don't need to give a reason to fire you, unless you are under a contract stating they do, you can sue them if you think they fired you for illegal reasons, but you have to prove that was the case.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#156
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
It is incidental here, we also have at will employment in most states, which means your employers don't need to give a reason to fire you, unless you are under a contract stating they do, you can sue them if you think they fired you for illegal reasons, but you have to prove that was the case.


If you are employed in an 'at will' place of employment, then you can hardly claim 'unfair dismissal' because by accepting a job at such a place you pretty much automaticaly waive your rights to not be fired 'unfairly'.

My point though was that if you are in a position to claim unfair dismissal, such as in the example of working under a contract stating that they need to give a reason to fire you that you've just provided, then the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation. If that form of contracted employment exists where you live, then you can hardly describe the whole situation there as 'incedental'. It may be incendental in some places of employment there but it's obviously not in others.
#157
Quote by SlackerBabbath
If you are employed in an 'at will' place of employment, then you can hardly claim 'unfair dismissal' because by accepting a job at such a place you pretty much automaticaly waive your rights to not be fired 'unfairly'.

My point though was that if you are in a position to claim unfair dismissal, such as in the example of working under a contract stating that they need to give a reason to fire you that you've just provided, then the psychological affects of that unfair dismissal can be taken into account when calculating the compensation. If that form of contracted employment exists where you live, then you can hardly describe the whole situation there as 'incedental'. It may be incendental in some places of employment there but it's obviously not in others.


It's not places of employment that have that rule, it's STATES, and you can still take them to court for wrongful termination if you can prove that you where fired due to racial/sexual/religious/whatever discrimination, or for being a whistleblower, or numerous other protected things. And trying to win an emotional damage claim is pretty hard unless you can get a shrink to say you where seriously traumatized.

Also with the contract thing, in that case you would sue for breach of contract and not wrongful termination, and there's no way a jury would award emotional damages for that.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
Last edited by Kid_Thorazine at Oct 4, 2012,
#158
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
It's not places of employment that have that rule, it's STATES, and you can still take them to court for wrongful termination if you can prove that you where fired due to racial/sexual/religious/whatever discrimination, or for being a whistleblower, or numerous other protected things. And trying to win an emotional damage claim is pretty hard unless you can get a shrink to say you where seriously traumatized.

Agreed, but it's still possible, yes?
Quote by Kid_Thorazine

Also with the contract thing, in that case you would sue for breach of contract and not wrongful termination, and there's no way a jury would award emotional damages for that.

Unless, as you've just stated, you can "get a shrink to say you were seriously traumatized".

That makes an employee's feelings at the point of being unfairly dismissed a genuinely plausable issue.
#159
It's plausable, but unless you end up with PTSD from the experience it's not terribly likely (this can and does vary among different states, and different judges/juries, but unless you have a sexual harrassment claim or something it's probably not happening)
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#160
sry guiz, one day'merika will get out of the 19th century

jus be patient plz